In the last part of this series, “Is Red Pill Biblical?”, we discussed the Red Pill concept of the Male Imperative and how it is Biblical in presenting sex as driving need for men and that men being polygynous in their sexual natures matches with God’s design of the masculine nature. We showed however that Red Pill, because of its naturalistic world view, fails to see that sex is only part of a much larger masculine imperative that God intended for man when he designed him.
In this fourth part of our series, we will discuss the Red Pill concept of the Feminine Imperative and answer the question of whether any part of it is Biblical or not.
In order to discuss the Feminine Imperative we must first discuss the Red Pill paradigm of Alpha and Beta males which is at the core of the Feminine Imperative. “Alpha Fucks/Beta Bucks” is common way that the manosphere refers to two classes of men. There is also a well known “80/20 Rule” in relation to Alpha and Beta males meaning that 80 percent of males are Beta and 20 percent are Alpha. Tomassi states in “Transactional vs Validational Sex” that “Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks could better be described as Alpha Seed and Beta Need”.
In his article entitled “Alpha”, Tomassi defines Alpha when he writes [ https://therationalmale.com/2011/10/20/alpha/ ] – “Alpha is mindset, not a demographic. Alpha is as Alpha does, it isn’t what we say it is”. And in “The New Polyandry” [ https://therationalmale.com/2018/12/10/the-new-polyandry/ ] he writes “‘Broke men don’t get women‘,…unless they’re hot broke men”.
The point is a man being Alpha has nothing to do with how much money he has, but rather it is primarily based upon his mindset and then only secondarily upon his looks. Together this is what makes a man “hot” to a woman.
The Red Pill Alpha Male Mindset
Tomassi defines the Alpha Mindset in his article “Mental Point of Origin”:
“Personally, I was at my most Alpha when I didn’t realize I was. That’s not Zen, it’s just doing what came natural for me at a point in my life when I had next to nothing materially, only a marginal amount of social proof, but a strong desire to enjoy women for the sake of just enjoying them in spite of it.
I’ve mentioned before, the most memorable sex I’ve had has been when I was flat broke (mostly). It didn’t matter that I lived in a 2 room studio in North Hollywood or had beer and mac & cheese in the fridge – I got laid and I had women come to me for it…
It didn’t take my doing anything for a woman to get laid or hold her interest. All I did was make myself my mental point of origin. It’s when I started putting women as a goal, making them into more than just a source of enjoyment, that I transferred that mental point of origin to her and I became the necessitous one.
A lot of guys will call that being ‘needy’, and I suppose it is, but it’s a neediness that results from putting a woman (or another person) as your first thought – your mental point of origin…”
And in then in this same article Tomassi asks a few questions that help men to see if they are their own “mental point of origin”, i.e. living in an Alpha mindset.
“Are you your mental point of origin?
Is your first inclination to consider how something in your relationships will affect you or your girlfriend/wife/family/boss?
When men fall into relationships with authoritarian, feminine-primary women, their first thought about any particulars of their actions is how his woman will respond to it, not his own involvement or his motivations for it. Are you a peacekeeper?
Do you worry that putting yourself as your own first priority will turn a woman off or do you think it will engage her more fully?”
So, according to Red Pill, If you as a man make your life decisions regarding your career, your hobbies, your relationships or other decisions without seeking to please others whether they be men or women then you have an Alpha mindset. In my next article in this series I will be discussing whether any part of the Red Pill Alpha mindset is Biblical.
The Red Pill Beta Male Mindset
The beta male mindset according to Red Pill is the polar opposite of the alpha male mindset. Unlike the alpha male who needs no approval for his life decisions, beta males crave the approval of others, especially the women around them.
Specifically, when it comes to women, beta males put women on a pedestal and adopt the “Happy Wife/Happy Life” mentality. Tomassi describes the beta mindset or “beta game” in his article “Our Sister’s Keeper”:
“for about 25 years or so, popular culture strongly pointed men towards a sexual strategy that could be defined as Beta Game. Play nice, respect a woman by default, be supportive of her self-image and ambitions to the sacrifice of your own, don’t judge her and do your utmost to identify with the feminine, was the call to action that, deductively, should make a man more attractive to a woman.”
Why Do Women Marry Beta Men?
So, if women are primarily aroused by the alpha male mindset then why do we see women so often marrying Beta men? The answer to this is found in Tomassi’s article entitled “Transactional vs Validational Sex”:
“As most of my readers know, Hypergamy – women’s dualistic sexual strategy (and really life strategy) – is much more than a tendency of a woman to ‘marry up’. In Hormonal the ideas of Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks really solidify with the research.
However, as useful as it is as a catchy euphemism Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks could better be described as Alpha Seed and Beta Need. In a woman’s peak ovulatory phase of her menstrual cycle she enters an estrus state and becomes subject to behaviors that can only be defined as a pretext of seeking Alpha seed…
While women are subject to an estrus state they still require the second half of Hypergamy – the Beta need for security, provisioning, protection, comfort and at least the sharing of parental investment responsibilities for any offspring…
It may be true that women have never been better provided for in history as far as money and opportunities go, but women still look for emotional security, protection, dominance and comfort in men as part of their innate mental firmware.”
What Tomassi is saying is that women have duel and competing concerns when it comes to choosing a man. The have the Alpha arousal side but they also have the Beta needs side for security, provisioning, protection and comfort. Optimally women would like to have both sides of this equation met but few women can find a man that meets both the Alpha arousal and Beta provisioning desires that they have. So long story short, many women compromise on the Beta provisioning side because of the “80/20 Rule” that only 20 percent of men are Alphas and 80 percent of men are Betas.
In “The New Polyandry”, Tomassi writes:
“Monogamy is a social norm, if not an evolutionary norm. A lot has been written about how monogamy in its present incarnation – one man, one woman – is really the result of a post-agrarian social order that optimized the sexual strategy of Beta men. In essence socially-enforced monogamy serves the largest population of Beta males.
However, the tradeoff for women was long term provisioning, protection (in as far as the man was capable) and parental investment – all thing conducive to sustainable futures for women and their children. All that was expected of women was a compromise on the Alpha arousal side of Hypergamy. And naturally, Alpha men and most women found ways to circumvent this socio-sexual adaptation that benefitted women in spite of Beta men.
Monogamy serves Beta men. Alpha men still get sex, broke or not.”
And again in “Transactional vs Validational Sex” he writes about how the vast majority of women married to men whom they consider Beta husbands have sex with their husbands simply as a reward to control their behavior:
“For most men (i.e the 80% Beta men) transactional sex is where the rubber meets the road. In fact, I’d argue that for most Beta men transactional sex is the only definition of sex they ever really know…
Marriage today is almost entirely predicated on the transactional sex side of Hypergamy. I’m not saying it has to be, nor am I saying it always is, but I’m fairly comfortable in speculating that for most married women sex is reward she uses in the operant conditioning of her husband…
one thing we’ve all seen a lot of from young and old Blue Pill Beta men is this logical tendency for them to want to ‘sacrifice their way to happiness with their wives’. It’s as if the more they sacrifice the more they pay for that intimacy they seek, but what they never get is that this only buries their sex lives that much more.”
So why do so many women marry Beta men according to Red Pill? Because there are far fewer Alpha men, polygamy is not accepted by society, and a Beta male that can be a provider, a protector and a father to their children is better than having no man at all. And being married to a Beta male that they are not aroused by has one added benefit they would not have being married to an Alpha male. They can control the Beta man using sex as a reward.
In other words, according the Red Pill, the vast majority of women are settling for less than the man they would like to marry.
Hypergamy and the Feminine Imperative
According to Red Pill, a man’s sexual strategy is “quantity over quality” . This means a man is driven to have sex as often as possible and ideally with as many women as possible, thus men are far less picky about how sex occurs and who it occurs with.
Women on the other hand have an opposite “quality over quantity” sexual strategy. They are more concerned with the quality of the man in addition to his ability to provide for her, protect her and be a father to her offspring.
Women instinctively and naturally desire the Alpha “seed”, they desire sex with men who not only exhibit, but truly live the Alpha mindset. And if a man has the Alpha mindset along with the Beta provisioning and security a woman’s desires this makes for a “a good Hypergamous pairing” and Tomassi states “A woman in a good Hypergamous pairing accepts – desires – his authority, but also his genes. She doesn’t just want children, she wants his children”.
It is this dualistic sexual strategy in women’s “mental firmware”, the desire for Alpha seed but also the Beta needs for provisioning and security forms the core of the Feminine Imperative. Hypergamy is what prompts women to meet their dualistic sexual strategy by an means necessary.
Feminine Hypergamy is the reason you might see a 25-year-old woman marry a wealthy 50-year-old man. It is also the reason that the same 50-year-old man might come home to find his wife in bed with their pool boy.
Tomassi writes the following about hypergamy in “Relational Equity” :
“That post was born out of all the efforts I’ve repeatedly read men relate to me when they say how unbelievable their breakups were. As if all of the investment, emotional, physical, financial, familial, etc. would be rationally appreciated as a buffer against hypergamy. The reason for their shock and disbelief is that their mental state originates in the assumption that women are perfectly rational agents and should take all of their efforts, all of their personal strengths, all of the involvement in their women’s lives into account before trading up to a better prospective male. There is a prevailing belief that all of their merits, if sufficient, should be proof against her hypergamous considerations.
For men, this is a logically sound idea. All of that investment adds up to their concept of relationship equity. So it’s particularly jarring for men to consider that all of that equity becomes effectively worthless to a woman presented with a sufficiently better prospect as per the dictates of her hypergamy.
That isn’t to say that women don’t take that equity into account when determining whether to trade up or in their choice of men if they’re single, but their operative point of origin is ALWAYS hypergamy. Women obviously can control their hypergamic impulses in favor of fidelity, just as men can and do keep their sexual appetites in check, but always know that it isn’t relationship equity she’s rationally considering in that moment of decision.”
And in “Christian Dread” Tomassi writes:
“Religion is no insulation against Hypergamy. I understand that in the past religion was used as a control on Hypergamy, especially in respect to men’s burden of performance and the necessity of their provisioning to women.”
Is the Feminine Imperative Biblical?
The Bible teaches us that God made men and women to bring him glory in different ways. In 1 Corinthians 11:7 we read “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man”. Man was created with the primary purpose of imaging or displaying God’s attributes. God is a leader, a worker, a husband and a father among many other things. And in order for man to image God as a husband and father God created woman and by extension marriage.
The Bible states in Ephesians 5:24 “Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing” and in Ephesians 5:29 we read “For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church”. This teaches us that God wanted women to submit to the authority of their husbands and to be provided for and protected by their husbands.
So, we can rightly say that the part of a woman’s “mental firmware” or “hardwiring” that seeks a confident man to lead her, provide for her and protect her is by the very design of God and it is in fact Biblical.
But just as sin corrupted man’s God given masculine nature in many ways so too woman’s feminine nature has been corrupted by sin as well.
Sin corrupts and twists a woman’s God given desire for male leadership, provision and protection and makes her discontent with her husband always wanting more. This discontentment destroys a woman’s love and devotion to her husband and it is this discontentment that is the root cause of women having affairs and/or divorcing their husbands looking for the next best guy.
In the 7th commandment found in Exodus 20:14 we read “Thou shalt not commit adultery” and in Romans 7:2-3 we read “For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth… So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress”. These are direct condemnations of the end result of Feminine Hypergamy.
Contrary to Tomassi’s assertion that “Religion is no insulation against Hypergamy” the Bible teaches us that true faith in Christ can absolutely be an insulation against Hypergamy (women being sinfully discontent with their husbands) and the other sins of this world:
“I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.”
Philippians 4:13 (KJV)
“For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.”
1 John 5:4 (KJV)
The topics of the sanctity of marriage and exhortations to contentment are mentioned side by side in the book of Hebrews:
“4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. 5 Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.”
Hebrews 13:4-5 (KJV)
When women are covetous of other’s women’s husband’s or they simply allow themselves to grow discontented with their husbands for various reasons this threatens the sanctity of their marriage covenant.
Tomassi’s assertion that “Religion is no insulation against Hypergamy” is also wrong not just from a Biblical perspective, but even from a divorce rate perspective.
Focus on the Family did a closer look at the common claim that divorce rates are as high for those in the church as those outside the church in an article entitled “Divorce Rate in the Church – As High as the World?” . In that article they state some interesting studies which show committed Christians that regularly attend church have lower divorce rates than the average population:
“Professor Bradley Wright, a sociologist at the University of Connecticut, explains from his analysis of people who identify as Christians but rarely attend church, that 60 percent of these have been divorced. Of those who attend church regularly, 38 percent have been divorced.Bradley R.E. Wright, Christians Are Hate-Filled Hypocrites … and Other Lies You’ve Been Told, (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2010), p. 133
Bradford Wilcox, a leading sociologist at the University of Virginia and director of the National Marriage Project, finds from his own analysis that “active conservative Protestants” who regularly attend church have are 35 percent less likely to divorce compared to those who have no affiliation. Nominally attending conservative Protestants are 20 percent more likely to divorce, compared to secular Americans.W. Bradford Wilcox and Elizabeth Williamson, “The Cultural Contradictions of Mainline Family Ideology and Practice,” in American Religions and the Family, edited by Don S. Browning and David A. Clairmont (New York: Columbia University Press, 2007) p. 50
Professor Scott Stanley from the University of Denver, working with an absolute all-star team of leading sociologists on the Oklahoma Marriage Study, explains that couples with a vibrant religious faith had more and higher levels of the qualities couples need to avoid divorce.
Whether young or old, male or female, low-income or not, those who said that they were more religious reported higher average levels of commitment to their partners, higher levels of marital satisfaction, less thinking and talking about divorce and lower levels of negative interaction. These patterns held true when controlling for such important variables as income, education, and age at first marriage.
The divorce rates of Christian believers are not identical to the general population – not even close. Being a committed, faithful believer makes a measurable difference in marriage.
Saying you believe something or merely belonging to a church, unsurprisingly, does little for marriage. But the more you are involved in the actual practice of your faith in real ways – through submitting yourself to a serious body of believers, learning regularly from scripture, being in communion with God though prayer individually and with your spouse and children, and having friends and family around us who challenge us to take our marriage’s seriously – the greater difference this makes in strengthening both the quality and longevity of our marriages. Faith does matter and the leading sociologists of family and religion tell us so.”
True Faith in Christ, contentment with one’s marriage and keeping one’s family in church on a regular basis are in fact great insulators against Hypergamy.
Does that mean its guaranteed? Of course not. But it gives a marriage a far better chance of success.
The Feminine Imperative to seek the best quality man with which to mate and also to have a father for that offspring providing and giving security to a woman and her offspring is by the design of God.
But Red Pill because it is a naturalistic philosophy sees the hypergamous aspect of the Feminine Imperative, her always looking for the next best guy, as simply a part of evolution’s plan to give women the best quality children with the best provision and protection possible.
But as Bible believing Christians, we know that that the hypergamous part of the feminine nature, always looking for the next best guy and never truly being content with the man she is with, is actually a corruption of the feminine nature by sin.
God condemned feminine hypergamy in the 7th commandment and saw it as such a threat to society that he allowed the death penalty for it in the following passage:
“If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.”
Deuteronomy 22:22 (KJV)
Even short of the death penalty, women had a strong motivator to keep their hypergamous natures in check and keep would-be Alpha seeders at bay. If their husband divorced them and sent them away, they would lose their children to him and leave with nothing but the clothes on their back, no split assets, no alimony and no child support.
The sad truth is that because of changes brought on by feminism since the mid-19th century, all of these controls and checks against feminine hypergamy have been removed. Our society has actually been restructured to support feminine hypergamy.
Womens’ discontentment with men which is at the heart of feminine hypergamy is encouraged by our society. And our society actually rewards adulterous women with child custody, alimony, child support and split assets in the event of divorce.
A society which has no controls for keeping feminine hypergamy in check will eventually collapse. Why? Because without controls on feminine hypergamy marriage and the family unit have no security or stability. And when marriage and the family unit collapse society will follow.
We are already seeing the beginnings of this collapse of Western civilization with the growth of the Manosphere, Red Pill and the MGTOW movement. Many men in Western nations no longer see marriage as a blessing, but as threat to their lives and their emotional and financial wellbeing.
But what I have said many times on this blog I will say again now.
Guys I get it. Before the mid-19th century men had about a 97% chance that their marriage would be secure and truly be “until death do us part”. And even in the event of divorce, men did not loose their children or become financially destitute as a result like they do today.
If you are a non-Christian or fair-weather Christian who is not committed to your faith or one that does not regularly attend church you have roughly a 50 percent chance of divorce. If you are committed to your Christian faith, regularly attend church and find a woman of like mindset and background you can reduce that chance to less than 40 percent. But even in the best-case scenario, you still have about a 40 percent chance of being emotionally and financially devastated in the event of a divorce.
But let’s flip that around. That means you have a 50 to 60 percent of chance of staying married to the same woman, raising your children with her and spending your sunset years together.
Let me put that chance of success in perspective. Do you realize that only 30 percent of small businesses make it past 10 years before failing? That means you have twice the chance of your marriage succeeding as you would a small business if you started one.
Men your created purpose was not just to survive and avoid any potential harm to your emotional, physical and financial wellbeing. God created you as men to image him and thereby bring him glory. And you cannot fulfill that purpose without being a husband and father. God’s rule for both men and women as found in Genesis 1:28 is to “Be fruitful, and multiply” which means men and women are to seek marriage, and after being married have sex and have children. God’s exception to this rule is celibacy for undivided service to him for those few whom he gives this special gift to. God says in 1 Corinthians 7:9 that “it is better to marry than to burn”.
Risk is part of life gentlemen. And God created us as men to be risk takers, it is part of our built-in masculine nature. But just as when a man starts a small business, he must do careful planning and vetting, so too a man should do careful planning and then vetting of any woman he looks at as a potential future wife.
And a final word to the Christian women reading this. While both men and women can struggle with the sin of discontentment this sin seems to affect women far more often than it does men in marriage. It is not hard for most men to be content in their marriages to their wives despite things they wish were better. But for women it is the exact opposite. The vast majority of women struggle with the sin of discontentment with their husbands. And this is why once the societal controls on hypergamy were removed we saw divorce sky rocket with women now filing for 70 percent of divorces.
Christian women – keep your feminine hypergamy in check by daily asking the Lord to give you a spirit of contentment with your husband.
“Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.”
Hebrews 13:5 (KJV)
The next topic we will cover in this series is “Is the Red Pill Alpha Male Mindset Biblical?”
23 thoughts on “Is the Red Pill Concept of the Female Imperative Biblical?”
Another great article. My take is that you actually agree with Rollo on the subject of FI. It is obviously an observable trait in women. All the way back in college it was observable that the a—-holes (Alphas) got the hottest girls, while the nice guys got the leftovers. We never understood it but saw it over and over again.
Regarding religion not being a safeguard against hypergamy; my observation is that that is true as well. I’ve attend a very conservative church for over 30 years, and have seen divorces initiated by wives that just blew my mind. The husband was a fine man in every respect, but the wife still divorced him. Worse, the church never called her out on it, and the women of the church made up lame excuses like “well you never know what things are like behind closed doors”. It was obvious that there were no biblical grounds. However, as you say, strong faith can definitely hold hypergamy in check, but as Rollo says as well, it is no guarantee. I DO think that modern christian men could learn a lot from Rollo about the inherent nature of women, and how to be more Alpha and the head of their households, rather than the crap the church teaches them. The Church is a Beta factory. And this is certainly unbiblical. Beta men lead to wives divorcing them due to the FI and hypergamy. It’s a vicious cycle that shows no signs of ending. My Pastor friend is fond of saying that true Christianity is a MASCULINE faith. And that was true since Christ until the 1900s. That’s why marriages were successful up until now. If christian men learned Rollo they would know how to deal with their girlfriends and wives, and have more successful relationships, within the bounds of their faith. As it is, they try to be the nice husband, thinking “Relational Equity” is all they need to do to keep their marriages strong (and the CHurch encourages this), only to see their marriages fail because they did everything wrong. It’s sad.
What’s even worse is seeing young Christian men, either married or in a relationship leading to marriage, going on Facebook and elsewhere and “emoting” how great their woman is, how she puts up with him, how she’s his better half, and other kinds of Pedestalizing crap. It’s hard to know if they actually believe what why write, or if they’re just doing it because they think they’re supposed to or that their woman will love them more because of it. In any case, it’s unmanly and disgusting. An according to Rollo, actually counterproductive. I believe that. In their subconscious (put there by God) women want their men to rule them! Not harshly. But still to rule. Of course they will never say that, but it’s still true. As soon as a woman realizes she can dominate and rule her husband, that marriage is in serious danger. And yet, again, that’s what Churches are teaching their men. It’s crazy!
I will agree that religion can and should safeguard against the possibility of divorce. But the way I see it, the problem is that most church-going women don’t take their religion seriously. They will behave like Christians as long as it brings them attention, affirmation, and social approval. But as soon as the feminine imperative and hypergamy kick in, the desires of the flesh become prioritized. The inherent “rewards” that society now offers to faithless women reduce the risk and sweeten the deal, making it all the more easier for them to abandon their religious convictions in favor of indulging the corrupted aspects of their nature.
This was a good post. Much appreciated!
I’ve been thinking lately about some of the presuppositional ideas that undergird the current malaise. Dalrock has been opining on the perversion of Biblical ideas with the cultural dominance of chivalry/ courtly love. I applaud his work and while such stripping away of worldly ideas is helpful, I think there is something even deeper and more basic, and that is the notion that women are the gatekeepers of sex.
The Biblical ethic is that particular men are the gatekeepers of sex. (Just a part of Biblical patriarchy) For a woman who is not wed, her father is responsible to defend her virginity. If his daughter’s virginity is removed, it is the father who was sinned against and he, the father who is compensated by the theft. (Yes, it is theft,the taking of something that does not belong to the thief.). The father gives his gatekeeper’s keys to one man only, the husband of his daughter. He never gives the keys to his daughter. Even at the wedding the proof of virginity was affirmed. If virginity was asserted and the proof failed the father was held responsible for perpetrating a fraud. The husband having made covenant with the bride’s father, the bride, the community and God has access to his wife’s sexuality, he hold the keys. When the proverbs say “may her breast satisfy him at all times” it indicates that sexual refusal is contrary to the covenant. Moses and Paul further instruct that a husband may not refuse his wife sex. Any gatekeeping between husband and wife is covenant breaking.
Hypergamy rests on the notion that a woman’s sexuality is her possession. God says it is not so. She does not in God’s view, give her sex to her husband, he already owns it by covenant. To have sex with another is theft, her sexuality is not hers to give, but her husband’s possession. A daughter may not explore her sexuality with another, for it is not hers, to do so is to steal and dishonor her own father.
Thinking about the relationship in typological terms, the church does not give her worship to Christ, it is rightfully His and His alone. She is not her own, but bought with a price. Q: Bought from whom? A: “All that the Father give me…”. Neither does Christ, the husband, refuse His grace toward His bride, she is His to care for and nurture unto holiness.
Our cultural presuppositions often blind us to scripture and rob us of holy living.
My Conclusions that the church and church inc. seem to avoid like the plague:
– Fornicating males are thieves and should be despised as such and made to make steep restitution payments to the girl’s father.
– Fornicating females are thieves and should also feel the sting of shame and humiliation. Perhaps not a scarlet letter, but neither a white wedding dress.
– Adultery (sexual activity between a married woman and someone not her husband) results not in divorce, but the death of the wife and her illegal lover.
– Sexual refusal or unwillingness is theft and covenant breaking. I am unaware of a Biblically prescribed remedy.
– Worldly drama ie romance is no substitute for covenant; gratitude and appreciation beat transactional roses courtly groveling.
– Holiness not happiness is the aim of Christians and Christian marriage.
– A husband cannot lead if a wife won’t follow or you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make her drink.
The beta male mindset promoted by churches is what I’ve grown up listening too my whole life, and I don’t see that changing anytime soon. There was a period that I was always sinning when I was a teen because of my sexual need and desires for women, which for years hindered me to be really happy with how God made me. It was illogical to think that im sinning for having a desire that God put in every human being since Adam and Eve, because if he did then why couldn’t he remove it?
This blog has really opened my eyes to these issues and in ways i’m pretty ticked that these teachings will still continue. The only thing I can do is show what the bible says and doesn’t say that the church will or will not talk about. Once someone has knowledge of the word of God, they can never be persuaded to think any other way that the church would like them too. Didn’t we already get past this nonsense with the Protestant Reformation by getting away from church control and having people understand the word of God properly? I guess not.
A good post, indeed, but I can’t see religion being an insulation against the FI when current Western christianity reinforces the FI. In the past, sure, but in the year 2019? Hardly. You have society on one side encouraging women to be promiscuous and “free” and the church on the other side telling them they are more pious than men and “pearls of great price”, so they shouldn’t settle for anything less than the best, which is hardly a foundation to build on. Add to that the fact that there is little to no repercussion for women in the church who divorce and there’s little religious impetus to stay married. A woman ousted from one church for divorcing will be readily accepted into another church somewhere in town.
Although I would never instruct another christian brother to forego marriage I would greatly caution them to vet any prospective brides and to lawyer up and get as much legal protection as they can against the future possibility of divorce or worse. As christians we should be marrying and creating families and future generations of christians, but nothing says we cannot be smart about it given the current political and religious climate.
I agree with Rollo that Feminine Imperative is a reality. I agree with him that that a woman’s nature is duelistic in the sense that she seeks a man with a strong alpha mindset to lead her(not coddle her and worship her) but also seeks the beta provisioning and security and a father for her offspring.
In this way some women lean more toward the beta provisioning side in seeking a husband seeing security and provisioning and having a man who will have sex with them and just leave them as more important than having the alpha arousal. For other women the alpha arousal is the most important thing the beta provisioning and security means much less to them – women on this spectrum are the ultimate whores.
But let’s pay close attention to what Rollo said about Religion – “Religion is no insulation against Hypergamy.”
That is incorrect even by most studies on divorce. People who are highly committed to their faith and regularly attend church have significant drop in divorce rates. The truth is that Religion is SOME insulation against Hypergamy, but nothing is guaranteed.
Let me give you an example. I grew up in a conservative Baptist church and also went to a conservative Baptist Christian school. My first wife and I met in that background and we were married 14 years before being divorced because she had an affair. So that proves being committed to ones faith and regularly attending church is not a guarantee against hypergamy. However, the vast majority of the people my age who married in that church or married from my school or in Christian college are still married today 20 years later. So that proves the other side of what I am saying – that a committed Christian faith and regular church attendance are SOME insulation against hypergamy.
I agree that most, not all, churches today in America and the western world are beta factories. But that is where we must take a stand as Christian men. We cannot give up on God’s institution of marriage like MGTOWs or his institution of the church because both have been infested by egalitarianism. It requires men taking a bold stand.
This is what the the Bible says:
So if you have a pastor or elders that are preaching egalitarianism then find some men in the church, train them in what the Word of God says and then take a stand. Rebuke them before all. We can’t abandon the church, we must fight for the church.
On the issue of learning from Rollo. While I think there are some good observations in what he says, there is also a lot that conflicts with the Scriptures. the simple truth is men need to start following God’s Word. The Bible has so much help for men then what Rollo could ever offer. The Bible gives us the reason for gender roles, something Rollo can never answer. It is only by understanding the reason for gender roles, that our mission as men becomes crystal clear.
As I said elsewhere I want to say again because I really want to drive home this point for my readers.
Rollo said “Religion is no insulation against Hypergamy.”. A truer statement would be “Religion is SOME insulation against hypergamy, but no guarantee against it”. To say that a woman’s faith in Christ and a couple’s commitment to their church has absolutely no impact on hypergamy is easily demonstrably false. Again not saying these things are a guarantee, but they definitely give us a fighting chance.
I agree with you totally, committed faith is SOME insulation against Hypergamy. I guess that’s the most that can be said given you’d and my examples. But I sort of disagree that if men just read the Bible they will be the men God wants them to be. I bygone days that was true because society had a Patriarchal protection of marriage, and women “knew their place”. But nowadays men need more. The average Beta layman or Pastor IS studying Scripture, but still getting it all wrong. I see this all the time when I talk to them and try to insert some RP thinking into the conversation without explicitly saying so. 99% are firmly trapped in the Blue Pill Matrix. That’s were Rollo or perhaps Dalrock, and you of course, can help. The Bible is true in all it says about sex and marriage. But it is very thin on the nature of women. Who I’ve mentioned fill in those gaps via Common Grace I believe, even if like Rollo, they are not Christians. That’s my point about Rollo. Men need to know this stuff and the Bible won’t tell them. That’s all I’m saying.
Proverbs says a lot about the nature of women, as well as parts of Genesis 3 (the curse on Eve).
Religion is some insulation against hypergamy. But not much.
Barna’s well regarded divorce stats showed a statistically significant difference, but not a spiritually significant on. Based on Christian theology the difference in divorce rates ought to have been an order of magnitude and not just a few points. Even the stats your citing show 38% of Christians having divorced; which isn’t that far off overall divorce rates.
Go to the Amish, and the divorce rate you’ll find is near 0%.
Women get divorced more because they are more emotional than men. That’s the reason.
I appreciate these articles very much and agree with most of it. But what about the blackpill focusing on physical hypergamy which uses scientific studies showing that women are literally not attracted to 80% of men, and that it is therefore nearly impossible to even get married in the first place, especially if a man is also short (over 90% of women requiring certain height). There are many men today who get rejection after rejection because of hypergamy and simply give up. But that IF average men happen to get married because they have some money that women then fake orgasms because they are only sexually attracted to the top 10-20% men in looks. It would pretty much explain the pandemic of sexless marriages. Many blackpillers then realize that it is over for most men because any of these normie marriages are just a facade and not love. And can we really expect women to force themselves to be attracted to us sexually? Just like you could not force yourself to be attracted to a 300 pound woman. I was hoping you could debunk the science as just blackpill misinterpretation of it because I cannot, and the more I study it the more it seems they are right and that almost 80% of men are destined to have physically and sexually discontent wives. It just does not seem worth it.
I can find all the studies if you want to look at it.
I do not base my life decisions on studies or the life experience of others or even my own life experiences. I based my life decisions on my faith in God and in his Word. Occasionally I will cite studies, life experiences of others(or myself) and even studies that back up Biblical principles, promises and commands. But make no mistake, my life decisions begin with my faith in God and his Word.
With that all said. Is it possible that the overwhelming vast majority of women are not sexually attracted to their husbands? Yep. But women have been marrying men they are not sexually attracted to for thousands of years sir. And even today, with women having a choice in who they marry, they eventually settle for men they are not attracted to sexually. Want to know why? Because the hot girls take the hot guys. So the less than hot girls have to settle for the less than hot guys. Red Pill refers to this as SMV(Sexual Market Value).
But let me tell you friend, it is not just about looks, it is also about mindset. Women are attracted to strong and confident men, men who have an alpha mindset. Even if you are good looking, if you as man have a needy mindset, needing the approval of women or other men then a lot of women will not find you attractive. But if you have the alpha mindset, that you have your life mission (from a Christian perspective, your mission from God) and you are not worried about needing women’s approval you would be surprised how attractive that is to a lot of women.
The point is yes would every woman like to get with that 10 percentile of guys who have alpha mindsets, along with smokin hot bods? You bet. But after several years of having their heads in the clouds they finally realize they are NOT going to get those guys, because the top 10 percent of women snagged them. So yes they learn to settle. And yes they might not be as sexually attracted to the man they eventually marry. Again this has gone on since the beginning of humanity friend.
You need to accept the fact that most women for all of history have not always been sexually attracted to their husbands. They had sex to please their husbands and keep their provision and security. They faked orgasms to get him to buy them various things they wanted.
So yes it is very possible that 80% of men not just today, but throughout history have had physically and sexually discontent wives.
Now you can try and pursue blue pill game and try to feminize yourself to somehow make women want you more. The problem is that does not work with women. They might give you sex as a reward for being the “nice guy” from time to time, but they are not truly having sex with you like they would a hot guy. You can try the Red Pill game, go to the gym workout and sculpt you body, try and put on alpha mindset and see if that works for you. Then you could take the black pill and just give up.
Or you could follow God’s Word, pursue marriage and a family, knowing your wife may not actually want sex as much as you and that most of it will be transactional and simply be ok with that. If you marry a good Christian woman, she will put in the effort to cultivate a desire toward you and to “fake it till she makes it”.
The choice is your friend. Work with things as they are, not as you would like them to be, or just throw your hands in the air and give up.
I also suggest you read my article on Why MGTOW is an unbiblical philosphy.
Thank you for the reply. Well, that is a hard pill to swallow. Genesis 3:16: “…and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” I was taught that this verse says women deep down (in nature) want to submit to a man, but now the verse makes more sense as being a commandment for women since they by (sinful) nature would NOT submit but only submit to the top 10% or less hottest guys.
Blackpillers say there will be more and more incels because women will be more and more picky because of online dating. Would you say we as a society should go back to arranged marriages then? It makes sense. When I have children and children’s children I personally would like them to marry eachother as cousins as a first choice, so that they don’t feel like they need to be picky and my grandsons will have women they know are approved by the family to marry. They can separate from the world. Because it is becoming damn near impossible for sons to just go out and find a wife with the rejection rates women give. Do you also suggest plastic surgery for men to enhance their physical appeal to women?
Actually Genesis 3:16 means just the opposite of what most people are taught it means today. God meant that because of the corruption of a woman’s nature by sin, she would desire to control her husband, as his sin nature would desire to control him. See my recent article “Men should exercise control over themselves and their women” where specifically address the meaning of Genesis 3:16.
But don’t be so fast to lump in submission with sexual attraction. Yes if a woman is super duper attracted to a guy(the top 10 or 20 percent) then she will more than likely be submissive to him as well. But women who have strong faiths like Christians, or even non-Christians in more traditional countries will submit to husbands they are not sexually attracted to because this duty has been instilled in them. My point is women can be conditioned by both their faith and their culture to submit to husbands they are not sexually attracted to. This happened for thousands of years.
On the subject of arranged marriage, I absolutely believe as a society we should return to that. But I don’t see that coming anytime soon. The best I think we can do for now as Christian parents is have a strong influence on our children and help them to see they need our help in picking a spouse.
And going back to the Christian side of this. There are women that can put their hypergamous nature in check with the faith. There are women that because of their and inspite of the hypergamous natures, seek out men of good character regardless of looks.
And no I do not suggest plastic surgery for men. Like I said, most women eventually figure out that they are not going to get that top 20 percent of guys and they learn one way or the other to settle. But again – the faith aspect must be taken into account. It does affect things greatly.
You have to get out there on all the dating sites, be involved in church activities from various churches and then wait on the Lord and on this younger women to get their heads on straight and realize they are not going to get those hot guys. Trust me they come around eventually.
Yes, I totally agree. I am actually married already and have not had any problems with these things, but maybe that is because I capitalized on the fact that beauty standards vary between cultures and did the best with what I got even according to blackpill science (europid facial features), so I married abroad.. as well as the fact that God lead me and blessed me of course. But I am just grieving for all the men in my generation who did not have it as easy as me because of the way society is now, which is why if I have a daughter I want to fully condition her from early on to be obedient and be a blessing to some Christian man out there.
That said, I also base my beliefs on the Bible first but when there are studies I try to see if they fit the Bible because maybe my interpretation was wrong. So while I think blackpill science about women’s attraction might be true (and very depressing for most men), I do not really see it in the Bible. In fact I see more emphasis on how men value physical attractiveness in their women and that Proverbs 31 says we should not focus on a woman’s looks but rather her fearing the LORD and women’s looks are just vanity. But maybe that is just because many parts of the Bible are more directed towards men.
I believe that you’re pulling your numbers from a study on how women rated men on OkCupid profile pictures and other studies done on dating sites. I think that we have to be very careful what conclusions we draw from such data. Why? I think that we have to acknowledge that seeing a person in a photograph is very different from seeing them in real life. To start, the way that photography captures an image of a person means that certain people who would be seen as attractive in real life just don’t photograph that well due to how their face is shaped and how light bounces off of it. For example, people with relatively flat faces actually photograph better than people with more angular faces. I think that we can already see the problem here when it comes to men, who already tend to have more angular faces than women.
Then we get into the fact that photographs tend to flatten people’s faces. How do women get around this when they’re getting photographs for something important? The same way that men who have to appear on camera a lot do: they make themselves more photogenic using makeup. There’s a reason that “stage makeup” exists. It’s not because actors and actresses are hideous otherwise. It’s to counteract the effects of photography and videography. So, if women tend to wear makeup in the profile pictures that they post online and men tend to avoid it, you’re going to have women far more effectively countering the negative effects of photography. And to be clear, this isn’t saying that men need to wear makeup, even if it’s just for photographs. I’m saying that I think that we need to take such studies with a grain of salt and be careful about how far we extrapolate such data.
To add on, I think that BGR also has a point about women becoming more attracted to men based on their personalities. A woman might rate a man as average based on first sight (even in person) but end up becoming very attracted to him once she gets to know him better. That’s another reason why I’d be careful about how much I read into data that involves comparing how men and women rate the profile pics of the opposite sex.
Thank you for sharing those thoughts. Yes, I got those things from dating site studies, but also more serious studies on how women’s orgasms are influenced by their partner’s attractiveness. Attraction, mating etc. are very complex issues though. The most brutal is the height thing though which has been studied more seriously than just dating site studies. But that is because height is such a direct easy measurable element. Many men cannot even get their “foot in the door” before being screened off because of height and very few women don’t care about height so that makes it harder for men to “show their personalities” in the first place. The height requirement is enforced much more by women than men.
This is purely an anecdote, but my husband is 5’8”, and I thought that he was hot as hell the first time that I saw him. I’ve also had a lot of women tell me immediately and without any prompting how good looking they think that he is. So, yeah, being tall is definitely one thing that man can help make a man attractive, but it’s not the only thing.